Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2022
Blood donor notification of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease risk: Lessons in communicating donor deferral and risk.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Reynolds Claire A, Yawitch Tali, Hewitt Patricia E, Harvala Heli
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In 2005, the blood service in England notified 101 donors by letter that they may be at risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) because a recipient of their blood later developed vCJD. Donor experience of the notification was studied in a 2009 survey.
METHODS: Fifteen questions focused on satisfaction, emotional response and understanding of the notification letter. An average Likert score was calculated: 1 and 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = equivocal and 4 and 5 = satisfied; the per cent satisfied and dissatisfied were calculated and characteristics compared using the Fisher and Chi-squared tests.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 56 of 90 notified donors, mostly repeat, U.K.-born donors over 45 years of age. Four years after notification, many individuals still felt surprise (44%), upset (44%) or worry (50%) about the letter, with 10 feeling depressed. Thirty per cent were uncertain if they had vCJD or not. For future notifications, 57% would still favour a detailed letter and 36% would prefer a discussion in person.
DISCUSSION: It was notable how many individuals, 4 years later, still felt continuing anxiety about the vCJD notification letter, not noted in earlier interviews. This highlights a need for on-going support required in donor notifications where outcome for the individual is highly uncertain.
METHODS: Fifteen questions focused on satisfaction, emotional response and understanding of the notification letter. An average Likert score was calculated: 1 and 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = equivocal and 4 and 5 = satisfied; the per cent satisfied and dissatisfied were calculated and characteristics compared using the Fisher and Chi-squared tests.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 56 of 90 notified donors, mostly repeat, U.K.-born donors over 45 years of age. Four years after notification, many individuals still felt surprise (44%), upset (44%) or worry (50%) about the letter, with 10 feeling depressed. Thirty per cent were uncertain if they had vCJD or not. For future notifications, 57% would still favour a detailed letter and 36% would prefer a discussion in person.
DISCUSSION: It was notable how many individuals, 4 years later, still felt continuing anxiety about the vCJD notification letter, not noted in earlier interviews. This highlights a need for on-going support required in donor notifications where outcome for the individual is highly uncertain.